Life as a U.S. Senator
Overview
Life as a U.S. Senator
Formal Senate powers are articulated in Article I (legislative power) and Article II
(“advise and consent”) of the U.S. Constitution. In fulfilling these responsibilities, Senators
serve on committees and subcommittees, attend hearings, cast votes, meet with constituents, craft
legislation, attend legislative briefings and speak at various functions. Many of these
responsibilities are not unique to the Senate as member of the House of Representatives perform
many of the same functions.
House and Senate Differences
One obvious difference between Senators and Representatives is their qualifications for
office. Senators must be at least 30 years old, reside in the state that they represent, and have
been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years. Representatives must meet the same residency
requirement, must be at least 25 years old, and a U.S. citizen for at least seven years. Senate
terms are longer (six years) compared with House terms (two years). Statewide Senate races
tend to be more expensive than district-based House races. Seven states are represented by a
single person serving as an at-large Representative.
Senators provide “advice and consent” on presidential nominees for U.S. Supreme Court
judgeships and Cabinet Secretary positions. However, since all revenue bills must originate in
the House, Senators may not introduce bills that raise revenue, although the Senate may make
changes to and reject such bills. Moreover, Representatives decide whether or not to initiate the
impeachment process against federal officials, whereas Senators vote hold the trial on those
impeachments that meet the necessary majority vote in the House.
Changes in Congress in the Recent Past
Within the context of these Constitutional differences, both houses of Congress have
experienced institutional and external changes in past decades that have altered the legislative
process, Congressional relations with the President and the Executive Branch, and relations with
the public, the media, interest groups and political parties.
Party polarization has become increasingly more visible in both chambers since the
1960s, but has become much more pronounced since the mid-1990s. Polarization has led to
legislative gridlock on many policy issues, as compromise has taken a back seat to pursuing
party agendas. In an attempt to curb the considerable power committee chairs had in the pre1970s Congress, procedural reforms were enacted that gave party caucuses greater power to
select committee chairs. Before these procedural reforms, seniority played a much more
important role in committee chair selection than it does now. The number of subcommittees has
also increased, which better distributes power. In 1975, the Senate voted to amend its own rules
to reduce the number of votes necessary to invoke, which is now more often used by the minority
party to impede legislation. The results of these and other reforms since the 1970s have resulted
in party leadership becoming increasingly successful in pressuring Congress members to
promote their party’s agenda with donations raised by Congressional campaign committees and
leadership committees. These funds are used to reward loyal party members while punishing
those who lack party discipline. Put differently, reforms intended to expedite the legislative
process and better balance the distribution of power, have instead empowered the leadership
among the Republican and Democratic parties and reduced the number of “centrist” members in
both parties. Another factor affecting relations in Congress has been advances in media
technology.
The House and Senate now allow cameras into the House and Senate chambers. CSPAN and CNN ushered in a new era of cable news that made broadcasting news possible at any
time. Critics claim that the increased competition among cable news agencies vying to be the
first to report on major stories has led to a decrease in the reliability of the news. Moreover, the
increase in the number and types of cable news options led to increased calls to repeal the
Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and enforced by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). The doctrine requires those holding broadcast licenses to present
controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced fashion. Broadcasters
complained that this requirement violated the First Amendment right to free speech. In 1969, the
Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367. However, due to mounting pressure from the President
and some Congress members, the FCC decided to reevaluate the Fairness Doctrine and
determined, in 1987, that the increased competition resulting from mass media made the Fairness
Doctrine unnecessary. The FCC also determined that the Fairness Doctrine actually led
broadcasters to cover controversial issues less rather than spending the time and money
necessary to provide balanced coverage. Calls to revive the Fairness Doctrine have continued in
Congress ever since, but in 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the
Fairness Doctrine. Many believe that the termination of the Fairness Doctrine is directly related
to the growth of political talk radio in the 1990s, increasing bias among cable news providers,
and the accelerated decline of civility in politics.
Formal Senate roles have remained the same as when the Senate was created in 1787.
However, the founding fathers could not have anticipated the level of access to Congress’ daily
operations the public enjoy as a result of new forms of technology employed by the media. Many
positive consequences of unprecedented access have fallen by the wayside as the negativity and
partisan quarreling that plays out in political news from the radio to cable television carries over
to Congress itself. Instead of new technology enabling the public to gain insight into complicated
legislative politics, the media contribute to inciting partisan bickering that hampers the
legislative process.